IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of tenancy under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act requires proof of lawful cultivation on the 'tillers day,' which the petitioner failed to establish.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. By the present Writ Petition, Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

<WXY>"a. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order and direction directing the quashing and setting aside the of impugned order dtd. 07/01/2011 passed by Sub divisional officer, in being appeal No.27/2008 Panvel and as also the order dtd. 18/01/2014 passed by Maharashtra revenue tribunal, Mumbai and be pleased to allow the Revision filed by the Petitioner being Revision No. TNC/REV/47/B/2012 on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." "</WXY>

2. Such of the relevant facts as are necessary for adjudicating the lis between the parties in the present case are as under:-

2.1. The subject land referred to is property bearing survey No.141 having area admeasuring 10-86-0 Hector Ares situated at village, Moha, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad. Petitioner is the tenant. Private Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the Original landlords. Respondent Nos.6 to 11 are subsequent purchasers of the subject land from Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject land on tillers day i.e. 1/4/1957. Petitioner claims that his name is appearing in the Revenue Record i.e. 7/12 extract on tillers day in respect of the subject land. Petitioner hence approached the Tehsildar and ALT for seeking declaration as lawful tenant of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Sec. 70 B of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "said Act").

2.2. By order dtd. 31/8/2001 application of Petitioner under Sec. 70B of the said Act was dismissed and it was held that he was not a tenant of the subject land. 2.3. In Tenancy Appeal, by order dtd. 24/9/2004, Sub Divisional Officer (for short "SDO") remanded the case for reconsideration and fresh hearing back to the Tehsildar. 2.4. On remand, by order dtd. 31/1/2007, Tehsildar confirmed the earlier order.

2.5. Once again a challenge was maintained before the SDO in Tenancy Appeal. 2.6. On 7/1/2011, SDO dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner. 2.7. Being aggrieved Revision Application was filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short "MRT").

2.8. By order dtd. 18/1/2014, Revision Application was dismissed. 2.9. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

3. There are three concurrent orders viz, order dtd. 31/1/2007 passed by Tehsildar, dtd. 7/1/2011 passed by SDO and dtd. 18/1/2014 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short "MRT"), all 3 which are impugned in the present Writ Petition.

4. Mr. Ugle, learned Advocate for Petitioner would contend that Petitioner has been in possession and cultivating the subject land prior to the 1/4/1957. He would submit that by mutation entry No.957, survey No.141 was divided into divided into two parts i.e. 141-A and 141-B. He would submit that at no point of time Respondents raised any objection in respect of Petitioner's right and possession of the portion of the subject land and therefore any such claim at this stage would stand waived. He would in the alternative argue that by virtue of adverse possession, Petitioner had become the absolute tenant of the subject land. He would submit that Respondents did not lodge their claim or right in respect of the subject land before the statutory authorities. He would submit that Petitioner was thus a tenant and acquired tenancy rights from the Original owners in respect of the subject land and hence the impugned orders be set aside.

5. PER-CONTRA, Mr. Karandikar, has supported the Judgment dtd. 18/1/2014 passed by MRT upholding the order dtd. 7/1/2011 passed by the SDO in tenancy appeal No.27/2008. He has also drawn my attention to the first judgment and order dtd. 31/8/2001 passed by the Tehsildar in statutory proceedings initiated under Sec. 70 B of the said Act and contended that there is a categorical finding returned therein on the basis of evidence recorded before the Tribunal that possession and occupation of the subject land (including that of the Petitioners) on tillers